 In an oped in USA Today, John Brennan -- Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism -- responds to critics of the Obama administration's counterterrorism policies by saying "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda."
| Quite right, too. But honest criticism and statements of well-founded concerns serve the goals of protecting the Republic. How, oh how, to differentiate between the two? |
| I recall a day, not so long ago, when dissent was the highest form of patriotism. |
Brennan writes that, "Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill."
| But if you're on the same airplane as one you should have a healthy respect for the fact that they really, really want you dead. |
In the op-ed, titled "'We need no lectures': Administration disrupts terrorists' plots, takes fight to them abroad," Brennan writes that politics "should never get in the way of national security. But too many in Washington are now misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe."
| As opposed to how we fought terrorists in 2003, 2005 and 2007 ... |
The administration op-ed is in response to a USA Today editorial entitled "National security team fails to inspire confidence; Officials' handling of Christmas Day attack looks like amateur hour."
Brennan provides a detailed defense of the administration's handling of failed Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab whom, he says, was "thoroughly interrogated and provided important information."
| For about an hour. Then he was read his rights and got a mouthpiece. |
He suggests that many critics are hypocritical and clueless.
| Those are the Dhimmicrats, pal. The very large majority of Republicans and Tea Party advocates have refrained from the tit-for-tat, back and forth nonsense. We didn't politicize anti-terrorist policies this last decade. You did. |
The most important breakthrough in the interrogation occurred "after Abdulmutallab was read his rights, which the FBI made standard policy under Michael Mukasey, President Bush's attorney general," he writes, noting that failed shoe bomber Richard Reid "was read his Miranda rights five minutes after being taken off a plane he tried to blow up. The same people who criticize the president today were silent back then."
| Back then we were still trying to figure out how to do this stuff. Bush figured it out, which is why Gitmo was full. |
Brennan said anyone who wants to change the policy would be casting aside lessons learned "in waging this war" on extremists.
| Who fought that war for seven plus years? Are you incorporating the lessons of the Bush administration into your effort? George that it was okay to listen to international telephone conversations to find out to whom terrorists were talking. George thought that it was okay to intercept the e-mail of terrorists. Are you doing that? Tell us what 'lessons' from the Bush administration you've kept in your playbook. |
"Terrorists such as Jose Padilla and Saleh al-Mari did not cooperate when transferred to military custody, which can harden one's determination to resist cooperation," he writes.
| While they might not have talked, they also weren't making fools of our justice system, and they weren't threatening anyone. |
He calls it "naive to think that transferring Abdulmutallab to military custody would have caused an outpouring of information. There is little difference between military and civilian custody, other than an interrogator with a uniform. The suspect gets access to a lawyer, and interrogation rules are nearly identical."
| Well not exactly, as even the Army Field Manual isn't quite like a civilian interrogation. But a CIA interrogator would have had even more leeway. |
Moreover, Brennan says, hundreds of terrorists have been convicted in criminal courts while only three have been convicted in the military tribunal system.
| So first the liberals do everything possible to gum up the military tribunal system with multiple, multiple delays and lawsuits, and then they point out that no one was convicted in them. |
The former CIA official also asserts that the Obama administration is doing a better job than the Bush administration did in taking the fight to al Qaeda. "This administration's efforts have disrupted dozens of terrorist plots against the homeland and been responsible for killing and capturing hundreds of hard-core terrorists, including senior leaders in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond -- far more than in 2008."
| Apparently all the al-Qaeda deaders in Iraq from 2004 to 2008 weren't counted ... |
"We need no lectures about the fact that this nation is at war," he says.
| Perhaps an application of the clue bat then ... |
USA Today's editorial writers see it all a bit differently, of course, writing that though "the Obama administration's national security officials have struggled to assure the public that they know exactly what they're doing," they are so far "achieving the opposite, and they're needlessly adding some jitters in the process."
The editorial writers fault the Obama administration for announcing "last week that an attack by al-Qaeda is likely in the next three to six months. The warning is bound to frighten the public, with no obvious benefit beyond the ability to say 'I told you so.'"
| There's a fine line to walk on keeping this news quiet versus warning the public. If we had more confidence in the administration we could perhaps trust their judgement. But we don't, so we can't ... |
They also refer to National Intelligence Director Admiral Dennis Blair (ret.) as having "had a 'Duh!' moment" for acknowledging that "authorities fumbled the initial questioning of Abdulmutallab by failing to call in the high-value interrogation group, which was created to question terrorism suspects. Refreshingly candid, yes, but not a statement that inspires confidence. Especially when the same day, at another Senate hearing, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified that the high-value unit was still in its 'formation stages' and that 'there was no time' to get it to Detroit."
USA Today's editorial writers say that when senior administration officials revealed Abdulmutallab's cooperation with authorities, "the news pretty much negate(d) earlier claims that no intelligence was lost when Abdulmutallab was prematurely read his rights." |